It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Rome create the crusifixtion story to justify murder?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: tetra50
You should, by this point in the thread, understand that the cannon has not been edited in councils, and that the council of Nicaea had NOTHING to do with the cannon whatsoever. This crap is all coming from anti-christian propaganda. If the bible is so edited, how can we go back to the writings of the early church fathers, some of whom personally knew the apostles, and read their quotes from the same scripture that we have today? There are over 1 million such quotes in the writings of the Church fathers, enough to reconstruct the bible just from their quotes.



If timelines are we we all think they are, how can you even go back to this as any reliable source whatsoever. What quantum walk, I wonder, via Hameroff and Penrose, has the bible taken, I ask you? And that is very much germaine to this thread, and any other like it, period, end of story.

And that in your next breath you would tell me, what you told me in my own thread about the very same, really, and dismiss it this way, that we are saved by faith alone, when I questioned, begs the question of your own logic applied to the very same principles….and so I have to wonder, if you really are that true Christian you claim to be, or masquerading as that for an entirely different POV support…..




posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50
I honestly don't recall what that thread was about, there have been so many over the years, but they all develop individually based on interactions in the thread. I guarantee that there is nothing different in my beliefs between then and now. If I do recall anything correctly, I suspect you were more concerned with doctrinal issues, while this is more about the historical order of how things happen.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: Entreri06
There are more existing copies and fragments of the New Testament of the Bible then any other ancient book, and they match up surprisingly well. This idea that this was some sort of game of telephone is nonsense from Bart Ehrman to sell his controversial book, and of course the more controversial the more sales. Its not like originals disappeared after they were copied, as he claims (which would be required for it to be a game of 'telephone').



No they don't match up well and Bart erhman isn't the athiest historian you made him out to be... He is personally profiting from his theory of an unchanged bible. Thru his book and the fact he is presently employed at a presperterian seminary.... He could not be a worse example to use.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: tetra50
I honestly don't recall what that thread was about, there have been so many over the years, but they all develop individually based on interactions in the thread. I guarantee that there is nothing different in my beliefs between then and now. If I do recall anything correctly, I suspect you were more concerned with doctrinal issues, while this is more about the historical order of how things happen.


This was my thread, "Is This Really Faith in Life, or a way of death?"http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1014664/pg1
and no, it wasn't just about doctinal issues, at all, but every time someone in this thread raised a salient point, you just reverted to, it's either about faith, or at the end: "By the grace of God, alone, we will be saved."

Perhaps you might go back and re read your responses.

I don't think anything is so sure anymore, as you make it out to be. And if you want to attract others to this belief system, and witness properly as it requests that you do, I think you should not be so dismissive of these claims, as they are ever gaining more ground, and representing an unanswered question or two about biblical cannon as it exists today, and different "memories" of "others" about it…..

And it might not hurt to review your own words in similiar circumstances, either…..
tetra



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06
No they don't match up well

there are 400,00 variants across roughly 24,000 manuscripts and fragments (not including over 1 million quotes form the early church fathers writings) out of which 75% are spelling errors, 15% are variations in Greek synonyms and transpositions, 9% are late changes, and only 1% of variations have any effect on the actual meaning of the text. That's a FAR better track record then any other ancient document in existence.

As I already quoted above from Erhman's own writings:
“essential Christian beliefs are NOT called into question by textual variants”

As for the existence of the original writings:


“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.”
Tertullian: De Praescriptione Haereticorum chapter 36

Apparently they were still being used in 197AD.


originally posted by: Entreri06
and Bart erhman isn't the athiest historian you made him out to be

I never said he was anything, all I stated is he is making controversial statements to sell books. You might want to check who said what in the thread.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




The facts are no real historians or archeologists think of the bible as anything resembling a history book


Wiki:

"There is no scholarly controversy on the historicity of the events recounted after the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BCE, but there is great controversy concerning earlier data"




There's no global conspiracy to make Christians feel dumb. It just honestly doesn't all add up.


What makes you think Christians feel dumb? I don't feel like my world view is any less intellectual than yours. The Jews didn't just orally pass down those stories. The basically wrote them in the stars before they wrote them on paper. Its called the Hebrew Mazzaroth, which the Babylonians perverted and made the Zodiac. Each star of the constellations of the Zodiac had a Hebrew name and those names told the stories.

Why don't you try telling me that no historian believes the Gospels are accurate portrayals of Jesus life.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: tetra50
“Did Rome make up the crucifixion story to justify murder”, and “did God send his son to die to make shame us into a certain style of life” are two entirely different topics, presented by two different people, in two different ways. The first a historical matter, where you presented yours as a doctrinal one. However, besides this being completely off topic, I have a feeling this is more about having a personal axe to grind?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: Entreri06
No they don't match up well

there are 400,00 variants across roughly 24,000 manuscripts and fragments (not including over 1 million quotes form the early church fathers writings) out of which 75% are spelling errors, 15% are variations in Greek synonyms and transpositions, 9% are late changes, and only 1% of variations have any effect on the actual meaning of the text. That's a FAR better track record then any other ancient document in existence.

As I already quoted above from Erhman's own writings:
“essential Christian beliefs are NOT called into question by textual variants”

As for the existence of the original writings:


“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.”
Tertullian: De Praescriptione Haereticorum chapter 36

Apparently they were still being used in 197AD.


originally posted by: Entreri06
and Bart erhman isn't the athiest historian you made him out to be

I never said he was anything, all I stated is he is making controversial statements to sell books. You might want to check who said what in the thread.



He's basically ken ham with a degree....



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Entreri06




The facts are no real historians or archeologists think of the bible as anything resembling a history book


Wiki:

"There is no scholarly controversy on the historicity of the events recounted after the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BCE, but there is great controversy concerning earlier data"




There's no global conspiracy to make Christians feel dumb. It just honestly doesn't all add up.


What makes you think Christians feel dumb? I don't feel like my world view is any less intellectual than yours. The Jews didn't just orally pass down those stories. The basically wrote them in the stars before they wrote them on paper. Its called the Hebrew Mazzaroth, which the Babylonians perverted and made the Zodiac. Each star of the constellations of the Zodiac had a Hebrew name and those names told the stories.

Why don't you try telling me that no historian believes the Gospels are accurate portrayals of Jesus life.



They wrote them in cruciform right?... With is no spaces or punctuation... Isn't that what the original Greek transcripts were translated from. There is no nearly universal concensus on the biblical accounts being true...nor a consensus on evidence chain for the purity of the texts. Nor on the fact that all the books that were cut out should have been....



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
a reply to: Krazysh0t

" Where are the records of Pilate signing off on Jesus' execution?

He didn't. He washed his hands and stated this man had broken no council by-laws.



Just because he "washed his hands" of the matter doesn't mean that records for the event wouldn't have been kept.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Entreri06

So you want to advocate making an assumption so we can postulate on what Rome may or may not have done given that said assumption is correct? Meaning that if the assumption is incorrect, then the whole conversation is irrelevant? To me, I'd rather determine the event happened first before determining guilt.



What exactly are you looking for in outside records? Keep in mind that Rome completely destroyed Jerusalem a few years after Christ. The temple was burnt and pulled down. Its probable that any important material that may have removed and taken out of harms way by the scribes or priests was of very high value nature and very limited. The rest burnt.

Any Roman records kept in Jerusalem were probably lost in the uprising as what Romans that were there initially were routed. Any records about Jesus were probably unremarkable and kept in the stack like everything else. So all that probably burnt.

Any records that may have been held by the early church at Jerusalem were probably lost in uprising. And what wasn't destroyed around Jerusalem to begin with was certainly finished off by the Romans. They leveled the whole place, it was completely destroyed.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

That's a lot of rationalizing on why no evidence exists. I can think of just as many rationalizations on why you are wrong and we can go back and forth all day on what likely happened and what likely didn't happen, but at the end of the day evidence of this trial DOESN'T exist. Therefore I have trouble believing that it even happened and my point stands. Prove that the trial happened first before talking about what Rome did or didn't do in regards to how the trial was carried out.
edit on 5-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: tetra50
“Did Rome make up the crucifixion story to justify murder”, and “did God send his son to die to make shame us into a certain style of life” are two entirely different topics, presented by two different people, in two different ways. The first a historical matter, where you presented yours as a doctrinal one. However, besides this being completely off topic, I have a feeling this is more about having a personal axe to grind?



Wjy on earth would I have a personal ax to grind? I went on to write a thread, agreeing with what you enlightened me about, via grace…..

Very, very strange response. None of us should be taking ourselves too seriously, should we?



new topics




 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join